The Likely Next Associate Justice Confirmation

For John, BLUF:  We have trust issues between our two major political parties.  Neither believes the other won't go totally wacko at the first opportunity.  We are settling into a Bismarck-like Culture War, and that is not good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Brace for War over Supreme Court

Here is the sub-headline:

From The American Thinker, by Mr Fletch Daniels, 27 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

The news that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was treated for pancreatic cancer raised the possibility of a Supreme Court opening within the next year.

The 86-year-old Ginsburg's health has been declining for years, to where the last year has felt like a bad remake of the 1989 Weekend at Bernie's movie.  Instead of enjoying her golden years in retirement, Ginsburg has been propped up and hidden in the hopes of holding the seat until a Democrat is elected.

The always elegant Michael Moore, who previously placed a Ginsburg doll atop a Christmas tree, summed up the Democrat zeitgeist when he tweeted, "HOLYMOTHEROFRBG!! EVERYBODY, RIGHT THIS SECOND, JOIN A MOVEMENT, CAMPAIGN, GRASS ROOTS GROUP -WHATEVER - AND WORK NONSTOP BTWN RIGHT NOW & NOV 2020!"

The Left is already manning the barricades.  The resulting hearing will make the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, a dark moment in U.S. history, look like a charming affair.  In the event that President Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett, as many conservatives hope, this hearing will be a preview of the Apocalypse.

It goes down hill from there.

As for Professor Amy Coney Barrett! I can't think of a better choice.  Yes, I find her association with the People of Praise Community as a positive thing.  Two of our very close friends from Naples, Italy, joined an affiliated Covenanted Community in Ann Arbor, Michigan, when he got out of the Navy.

To wrap up, I wish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the very best, including a continued long life.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Foreign Sources in Political Campaigns

For John, BLUF:  Did the President set up Reporter George Stephanopolis in answering the question about opponent information from another country?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"As Trump told Stephanopoulos, there is nothing wrong with listening to information that anyone, foreign or domestic, might have that is relevant to a presidential candidate."

From The Althouse Blog, 14 June 2019.

Here is the Professor Althouse excerpt from Mr John Hinderaker's blog post: />

"But what is blindingly obvious, yet absent from every Democratic Party news account feigning horror at the ABC interview, is that the Hillary Clinton campaign didn’t just receive 'foreign dirt' on the Trump campaign.  It paid for foreign sources to fabricate lies about Trump, which it then disseminated to the press.  Listen to 'foreign dirt'?  The Clinton [campaign] paid for it!"

Yes, I agree.  But it is a case of tunnel vision, target fixation.  In the flying dodge the problem with target fixation is that the aircraft impacts unscorable at twelve.

One thing to think about is that information wants to be free.  So, should we be locking it up?  Should the salacious "information" in the Steele Dossier have been locked away?

What I worry about is summed up in this Blog Comment:

whitney said...
Doesn't matter.  Everyone's locked into their positions now.  You're either in the Trump evil crowd or Trump not evil crowd. Perhaps the structure can survive past Trump but the divisions will remain.  The gulf is too wide, violence is going to be met with violence and Chaos will ensue.  All the symptoms of late-stage Empire are around us.  It will be different than the other falls but there will be similarities.  No amount of preparation will save you because preparation is based on predicting the future and predictability will be lost first.

6/14/19, 6:44 AM

Unlike Whitney, I don't think we are there yet, but we could get there.

What gives me hope is talking to people.  On City Life this morning we had myself, the Co-Host, Jim Peters, and three guests, plus the Producer.  We had 2016 voters for Mrs Clinton and for Mr Trump, but we were civil in our discussion.  And, there was little to no interest in Impeachment.  If we can maintain that civility we will get through this.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

A False Flag Operation

For John, BLUF:  The big problem is we can't outlaw stupid, on any side.  Perhaps, if we honored and knew our history we could put some of this stuff on the shelf and mark those who took it down as just plain stupid.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Nation's Liberals Devastated After Learning Hate Crime Didn't Actually Happen

Yes, it is The Babylon Bee, from 18 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

U.S.—The nation’s liberals were struck by a devastating blow this week after finding out a hate crime, reported by Empire actor Jussie Smollet, didn’t actually happen.

“I needed this to be true,” said liberal columnist Hanna Spalding.  “When I first heard the news of this attack, I was filled with so much hope. I felt so validated.  Then that was taken away.  Now I just want to cry into my pillow.”

The attack had been called “a modern-day lynching” by democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker but after Chicago police reported that the “trajectory of the investigation” into Smollet’s story had shifted, Smollet was stripped of his victim status.  Booker became irate, phoning the Chicago police chief and shouting repeatedly, “Check it again!  CHECK IT AGAIN!”

After some deep breathing exercises, Booker spoke with reporters.  “How are we supposed to intentionally turn the nation against each other and exploit these divisions for political power if people won’t commit a simple hate crime once in a while?”

It is satire, but it reflects our not moving on.  How are we going to agree with reparations if we don't have someone who can say it is done, it is satisfied?  And we don't.  I would agree to "reparations" if that would pay the bill due.  But who has the moral authority to sign off on a reparations package?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Asset Forfeiture Challenged

For John, BLUF:  I guess one could argue it is a particularly effective police tactic, but if it is, why haven't we won the drug war with it?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit

From Slate, by Mr Mark Joseph Stern, 28 November 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Tyson Timbs just wants his car back.  In 2015, Timbs was charged with selling heroin to undercover officers in Indiana to fund his opioid addiction.  After he pleaded guilty, a private law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state to confiscate his Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000.  That’s more than four times the maximum $10,000 fine for Timbs’ crimes.  But because he briefly carried drugs in the vehicle, the firm claimed that it could seize and sell it, turning over some of the profit to Indiana and pocketing the rest.

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil asset forfeiture, also known as legalized theft.  Every year, the federal and state governments obtain billions of dollars thanks to the work of prosecutors who expropriate property with some tenuous connection to a crime.  Most states use the money to fund law enforcement, called policing for profit.  Indiana also lets private attorneys file forfeiture claims against defendants, earning contingency fees and a share of the profit.  That’s what happened to Timbs—so he sued, insisting that extreme forfeiture violates the Constitution.  On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled that it agreed, with an unusual coalition of justices assailing the practice.  A decision for Timbs could curb law enforcement abuses across the country, limiting one of the most scandalous components of our criminal justice system.

The whole article, snarky though it was, was a fun read.  And, it looks like asset forfeiture will be reined in a bit.  The other fun thing was seeing supposedly ideologically different people, like Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor, working the same side of the street.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Reining in Asset Forfeiture

For John, BLUF:  Excessive fines are abusive.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Supreme Court Will Hear Case on the Excessive Fines Clause that Could End Up Curbing Asset Forfeiture Abuse

Here is the sub-headline:

The case will decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states.  If so, it will also have to address how much it restricts asset forfeiture.

From The Volokh Conspiracy, at Reason Magazine, by Lawyer Ilya Somin, 19 June 2018.

This is one of those obscure items that lawyers and those interested in the Constitution like to wrestle with.

I am with Lawyer Somin on this.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

If President Trump Goes

For John, BLUF:  The 2016 presidential loss was a disorienting blow to the Democrats.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Do Democrats know that Hillary Clinton is not second-in-line for the presidency? It's hard to tell.

Asks Cartoonist Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays), back on 21 July 2017.

For the record:

The President is succeeded by the Vice President, in the event he leaves office (death, incapacitation, impeachment, resignation), and after the VEEP comes the Speaker of the House and then, per the Constitution, the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate.  Who is, at this time, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

No, Virginia, it isn't Hillary Clinton.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

There is Good News Tonight

For John, BLUF:  Now, if the members of the Massachusetts General Court can bestir themselves, this would be a good move for us also.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This is a little late (a month late), but it is good news for citizens.

Nebraska Just Abolished Civil Forfeiture, Now Requires A Criminal Conviction To Take Property

From Forbes we have Reporter Nick Sibilla writing:

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts signed a bill on Tuesday that eliminates civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize and keep property without filing charges or securing criminal convictions. The bill, LB 1106, passed the unicameral legislature last week by a vote of 38 to 8.

Civil forfeiture has ensnared a wide swath of victims in Nebraska. A Peruvian pastor once had $14,000 seized during a traffic stop. Only after the local chapter of the ACLU intervened was he able to recover his cash. Last year, a federal appellate court upheld forfeiting more than $63,000 in savings from a decorated Air Force veteran, even though he was never charged with a crime.

Yes, the rule of law, with justice by the courts and not by government bureaucracies.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Reforming Asset Forfeiture

For John, BLUF:  This is a step in the right direction.  New Mexico leads the way.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Mr Rob Eno's Facebook page I got this link to The Daily Caller and an article about "New Mexico Gov Abolishes Civil Asset Forfeiture".  That is, Governor Susana Martinez signed the legislation.

Well, it doesn't actually "Abolish" Asset Forfeiture, but it does reform it.  Here is the lede:

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez signed a bill to abolish civil asset forfeiture Friday.

She signed just before the noon deadline that would have pocket vetoed the legislation.

“As an attorney and career prosecutor, I understand how important it is that we ensure safeguards are in place to protect our constitutional rights,” Martinez said in a letter announcing her decision.  “On balance, the changes made by this legislation improve the transparency and accountability of the forfeiture process and provide further protections to innocent property owners.”

Asset Forfeiture was a wonderful tool for going after the Mob, but as with most things, the question is, can we keep it that narrow lane or will those who have only a hammer view every problem as a nail.  As I recall, someone wanted to use Asset Forfeiture to go after those protesting abortions.  And, as it is now, if you are driving to Florida for a vacation and have $3,000 in cash and an expensive camera in the car and you get stopped by police that could all be seized as possible illegal results of drug trafficking.  It has happened to others.  You have to hire a lawyer and sue to get your assets back.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tennessee County Shows the Way

For John, BLUF:  Civil Asset Forfeiture is right up there with NSA in stepping on the rights of Citizens.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a vido [I hope] of a Tennessee DA saying that they are going to restrict civil asset forfeiture to cases were there is a conviction for criminal activity.  That is novel.  And a step in the proper direction.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Take It All

For John, BLUF:  Link has photo of the former Caswell Motel.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Think Progress we have an article on civil asset forfeiture by Reporter Nicole Flatow, "Local Officials Encourage Police To Seize Cars, Flatscreen TVs, And Computers From Civilians​".  The article doesn't view the program favorably.

The first two paragraphs are:

Those who watch Last Week Tonight With John Oliver know what it means to be the subject of a civil forfeiture. As Oliver described it, “It’s really legalized robbery by law enforcement.”

Cops have the authority to seize items they suspect are linked to a crime, most individuals can’t afford a lawyer to fight the forfeiture.  And once the property is taken, it’s extremely rare that they ever get it back.

When Progressives and Conservatives think alike it is time to act.  We need to reign in this law, which once was good, but has now become a thicket of abuse.

And, likely, we need to start putting a sunset clause on all legislation.

We addressed this issue in 2011.

And earlier this year.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff